Death penalty remains in play for man accused of gunning down parents

John Jermaine Boyd, 28, is one of two men charged with killing couple in front of 4-year-old daughter.

A judge has declined to take the death penalty off the table for John J. Boyd,… (DONNA FISHER, THE MORNING…)

October 26, 2012|By Kevin Amerman, Of The Morning Call

A Lehigh County judge has kept the death penalty in play for a man accused of gunning down and running over an Allentown couple as their 4-year-old daughter watched.

Public defender Karen Schular tried to get Judge James T. Anthony to quash prosecutors' attempt to seek the death penalty against John Jermaine Boyd, 28, of Allentown. Authorities say Boyd and Tykweiss Wade, 16, killed the couple in December over a $250 drug debt.

Schular had argued Boyd's arrest was illegal and his charges should be dismissed. She also fought to have the death penalty — which could be applied if Boyd is convicted of first-degree murder — tossed.

Anthony denied the motion.

Schular's motion stretched beyond her client's case.

In it, she attempted to have Anthony hold a pretrial hearing — something currently not required — to present evidence that the death penalty is warranted.

Schular is hoping to spark a statewide change by increasing the standards needed for prosecutors to seek death. She has said she could appeal Anthony's decision and still create statewide change through the state's Superior and Supreme courts.

She has not appealed yet.

Currently, prosecutors need to only cite aggravating circumstances in their request to seek the penalty. A hearing to determine if the penalty is warranted doesn't occur until after a conviction — a process Schular argues is backward and costly to taxpayers.

"If an individual prosecutor feels as though the death penalty is warranted, they simply have to file a piece of paper notifying the defense of which factors they intend to prosecute," Schular wrote in her 33-page motion filed July 20. "Under the present standard, they are not required to produce any further evidence until after the jury trial. Yet, once this notice is filed, whether valid or not, then the county coffers must open. The time has come that the taxpayers and courts can no longer rely upon the good faith of the prosecution whose discretion is left unchecked until after the sentencing hearing."

Schular noted that despite all the time and cost associated with the death penalty and its ramifications, less evidence is needed to seek the ultimate punishment than to request a routine search warrant.

Prosecutors are the seeking death for Boyd, alleging four aggravating circumstances, including torture and placing others in grave risk of death. That means Schular must hire, with county funds, different experts to fight each one. She says that's not fair and a hearing should be held to determine if each aggravating circumstance is legitimate — despite the law saying prosecutors need to just show evidence of just one aggravating circumstance. Schular argued that prosecutors have not shown enough evidence to show the death penalty would be warranted for Boyd.

In his opinion filed this month, Anthony does not weigh in on whether or not there should be pretrial hearings to determine the legitimacy of aggravating circumstances in death penalty cases across the state. He simply says, under current law, prosecutors have met their burden in the Boyd case by showing there's a least "some evidence" supporting one aggravating circumstance, so the case remains a capital case.

Anthony also stated that he believes Boyd's arrest was legal and that there's enough evidence against him to let his charges stand.

Besides homicide, Boyd and Wade are charged with reckless endangerment, corruption of minors and conspiracy in the Dec. 17 shooting that left Steven Santiago and Adrian Ramirez dead outside their home on Walnut Street in Allentown.